Forum:Moving
Pros/Cons and Options Pros *We will be rid of Wikia Staff. *We will be rid of useless Wikia features such as the Blogs. *We will be able to have much more control over what we do. *We won't have the Oasis skin and the new suckish Terms of Use. *We will keep all of our articles and depending on the new host we have, all of our edits and the like. *Did I mention no Wikia Staff or useless features? *No advertising of other wikis, that not only have nothing to do with ZP but also take up space. Cons *As Joe said, we will lose traffic. *Wikia will keep all of our articles and data, we can only copy it, not delete the whole thing. *We won't be able to use zelda.wikia.com, but that won't matter anways simply stating it. *We might have to use ads depending on our new host. *We won't have Monaco either way. *Connection with Wikia will stop, we'll be on our own. *The new servers might be unreliable. *We might also lose users in the move, either because they don't want to re-register or they like the new skin too much. *If you like the useless Wikia features then you'll be out luck. Options *There are several other Wikia Farms, but Shout Wiki seams to be the most reliable that I've noticed. *We could have one of us put this on a server and run it. It would allow direct control of ZP, but we'd probably end up with a super laggy server like ZW. *Merge with ZW.(Not that I want to, but it is an option) *Suggestions? Comments Any suggestions for what we might do? Also, what other Pros and Cons are there?'-- C2' / 01:06, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :If there is a way to do a 100% full transfer of all the articles and files then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --Birdman5589 (talk) 04:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I think there would be, but it may take a lot of work. -'Isdrak ' 04:18, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::We'd have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of remaining Wikia affiliates. Which, of course means that due to there being few to no pros (except myself) it might be a good move if the transition process isn't too bothersome. Of course, whoever had the original idea does not seem to have a realistic grasp on the situation. --AuronKaizer ' 18:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::: I'm all for it. I think at this point, getting a dump of the Wiki and moving it elsewhere seems a hella lot easier than reformatting articles. However, ZW may prove troublesome if there ends up two independent zelda wikis. -Stars talk http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/pyroac/Starssprite.gif 18:26, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::I want to switch. But like Stars said, ZW probably wouldn't be happy. --'Jazzi BassJapas ''' 21:03, October 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The new skin looks terrible and there is no way we could possibly run with it. That being said, another pro would be getting rid of that stupid wikia ad that says look at whats hot in gaming... worst ad ever --Hydropanda (talk) 02:56, October 11, 2010 (UTC) I have located a Wiki farm for us to move to, it uses wiki coding and transfers everything, including edit count and files. All that is required is a data dump and its can be handed over to the shoutwiki staff and they will move everything.Echo 1125 (talk) 22:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :You know what? Screw Wikia, I'm tired of having to depend on little ol' undependable them for everything, all the while having to put up with their hypocrisy and forced "innovations". I'm all for it at this point. --AuronKaizer ' 22:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I be in agreement with AK -'Minish Link' 22:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I, for one (and maybe only one), don't have much of a problem with the new look; it mixes things up and makes it seem fresh and, maybe even, easier (be aware, though, that I haven't used the new look that much yet; this is basically my initial response). Moving away may make things too different and attract fewer new users. The 23:27, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::Definitely not easier. There is no way to have a customized navigational thingy like the sidebar that I am aware of, and the navigation system that is there is horrible. Freshness is all well and good, but do you think it will be fresh a year from now? Supporting the skin based solely upon freshness is illogical. Also, do you think that the skin is good enough to justify a complete replacement of Monaco? -'Isdrak ' 01:11, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well, TM, you're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I'll have to disagree on all counts. Everything that the current look does right, the new one does wrong. As for the moving notion itself, assuming what Echo found is all (s)he says it is, I fully support. Actually, I support anyway, but complete tranfer just makes things much easier. Wikia's never helped us much, ever. And with all this recent IRC crap... I can't really think of any reason to stay affiliated with Wikia other than that it could bring more traffic to the wiki, but meh. Having a half-decent wiki skin and not being associated with them is way too good to not agree with. By the way, is there some sort of regulation on stuff we'll have to get rid of (like MyHome since Wikia sort of "invented" that... not that anybody'd miss it, but you know)? Or is there no copyright on that sort of thing? 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 04:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The look is horid. I have bad eyes as it is, and, although I've never tested it with my glasses, how do I know. I get headaches easily. I can't find anything and it isn't fair. The editing is harder to do. I'll test it on my computer when I get back from school, but as of now. It's just, bad. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I'm not buying this whole move thing at all. Moving and operating your own wiki is much harder than it seems (not even ZW does that. They are operated by ZU). So unless this wiki farm is literally a wikia-esque wiki farm where mostly everything is set up from the get-go, we have a problem. And if that is the case, we are just putting ourselves in the same position as we are in already, so there's may be no real point to do so at all with the risk. Second, this will kill our traffic. A lot of people use this over the others simply because it is part of wikia. So in that sense, we will lose that traffic. In another sense, we will lose traffic by potentially dropping to the bottom of Google search when we start a new wiki. Third, this would leave room for another wiki to sprout up using wikia in our place. And though they will likely never catch up to us, it is possible to gain a lot of info in a short amount of time as seen with our expansion alone. There is a lot more I have to say dealing with wikia itself, but not a lot of time. But bottom line, this is not a good idea to just jump on without a lot more discussion first. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:17, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Joe brings up a good point. Also, if we do move, we should first have a clear consensus (or really close to one) about moving. I'm not for or against moving; but, if I had to pick, I would choose against at this point. I am against the lack of Shout Box in the new look, though. The 22:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Every point that Joe mentions are the reasons I'm not fully behind a move. At the same time, I've tried using the new skin and navigation is horrible. The articles are so crammed by the fixed 4x3 aspect ratio. Along with the aspect ratio, The space for the article is even narrower as about a third of that space is used for the side bar. It makes that articles look as if you were reading them off of a mobile device. Maybe there is a way to make the new skin not so bad to work with but as it is now it makes it difficult. There is good reasons of each decision so that's why I'll move if we move and I'll stay if we stay. --Birdman5589 (talk) 22:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::It's not just the new look, to be perfectly honest... Wikia's been pissing me off for months. Their ideas are getting progressively worse and more mandatory. They've never been supportive of us when we actually need them, either; they freaking sided with SHADE LINK over us. Yes, Joe brings up good points, but I for one value a decent-looking, crappy-innovation-less, possible-to-navigate-without-having-a-seizure wiki over a popular, high-traffic one. Of course, it's all a matter of perspective anyway. ''Xykeb'' ''Yvolix'' '' '' 22:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Yeesh, I need to check the forums more often...but since the notion of moving came up, I've been in favor of it. I really haven't said much on the subject, but Wikia is doing precisely the kinds of things I hate seeing in administrative powers in general: forcing change on people without any real consent, emphasizing accommodation for n00bs who do nothing productive anyway, and forgetting the importance--heck, the meaning--of efficiency, to name a few. First decent opportunity we get, I am completely, totally in favor of moving. :::::::::::To comment on Joe's points, based on what I have seen on ShoutWiki, there isn't much we would have to set up on our own. While we would definitely lose a lot of traffic, this may be recovered over time. Personally, I'm fine with using advertising to achieve this (isn't that the main purpose of the YouTube pages?), but others may feel differently. Lastly, it looks like most of us are willing to move, which would leave this site largely unoccupied. Without an active base of regular users, it would take a long time for anything serious to get going again here. Jedimasterlink (talk) 07:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :I am not experienced enough to know the right thing here, but I would support a move if we could somehow keep our accounts.Phantom' Zelda ::While I would personally like to try out the new Oasis coding to see if it is any good, the feedback doesn't seem like it. Either way, I'm all for a move. To be quite honest, I'm all for any wiki farm that doesn't incorporate blogs and social networking site stuff. - McGillivray227 23:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC) I really hate the new skin. The navigation is piss poor, and it crams all the articles into a very small and narrow and lenghty page. It looks horrible as well. Another thing about this "New Look" is that admins won't be able to make custom changes to the layout of the page due to the new Terms of Use. So not only will it look bad, but we won't be able to customize it. And the way things look now, we will be loosing Monaco :( for sure. But I'd prefer to have Monobook and the admins have complete options to customize the wiki, than this new skin. Also, we will loose this domain name, so we would have to figure out a new URL too. Ohhhh, and another thing, Wikia will keep all of our articles. ALL OF THEM, so there is no cut and run, just a copy of the entire data we have and redirect zelda.wikia to our new URL. What Joe said is also true, we will lose traffic, and we might have to start using ads to pay for the cost. Now if you go to your Preferences and go to Skin and switch on the new look, it will show you exactly what Oasis entails and how awful it is. I'm using it right now and it really is the crapshoot. So we gotta make up our minds, is the new skin + less control really worth the extra views? '''-- C2 / 18:14, October 10, 2010 (UTC) :Well, the new URL will be dependent on the wiki farm we move to. For instance, the URL would be something like www.zelda.shoutwiki.com if we moved to Shoutwiki (which seems like the most likely option). -'Isdrak ' 18:24, October 10, 2010 (UTC) :: Shoutwiki looks like a viable option to me, from what I've seen. I'm all for it if we can reach a consensus. Jedimasterlink (talk) 20:36, October 10, 2010 (UTC) In response to Joe, we won't have to worry about another Zelda wiki cropping up here if we move. As long as an admin continues to post here occasionally directing people to the new site, Wikia cannot touch ZP -Stars talk http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/pyroac/Starssprite.gif 20:15, October 10, 2010 (UTC) :Good point stars. It might be hard to keep up with it and directing everyone, but it technically could work. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:40, October 11, 2010 (UTC) I vote for staying, but we should sign that petition and threaten to leave. all and all, if that new skin goes through then I wouldn't mind leaving, but it will make us lose a lot of traffic and I'm worried about lagging also. Half the time I go on bulbapedia it just DOESN'T WORK staight out. I don't want that to happen here.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 13:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC) Zelda Wiki Hello to all you people from Zeldapedia, I'm Xizor. I'm one of the Owners of Legendofzelda.com and one of the Bureaucrat Masterminds at Zelda Wiki. I've made a new section because it seems that some people have (semi-)seriously talked about a potential merge or something with Zelda Wiki. I have created this section to make that discussion a bit more focused and centralized, while leaving other, non-ZW-Merger options separate. We at Zelda Wiki have had (very) brief internal discussions, and we were actually open to the idea. Obviously, if it were something you guys were interested in, more detailed talks would be had. However, I am simply opening the door to say that we are not averse to the notion. I am reachable on Skype, LoZ.com, Zelda Wiki, and even here (though contacting me here is probably the least efficient method). To be clear, even if a merge is not the ultimate result, there are other options to our relationship that don't have to involve bitter resentment. Obviously we are competitors, but that doesn't mean we can't be friendly. Just as well, if you guys decided to go independent, and not merge with ZW, NIWA can still offer assistance, even if they won't be offering you a spot as a Member (NIWA has a "One Wiki per Franchise" policy). I look forward to hearing something from somebody soon. I will also be checking this page frequently. Thank you. --Xizor159 (talk) 19:47, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :I don't want to be mean, but your articles are a few hundred notches down from subpar. And if we merged, that would mean bumping ZW's articles up to our standard, or dropping ours down to match your standard, which just won't happen. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 19:52, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Obviously in a merge situation, as an open-to-edit-by-all Wiki, I'm sure a lot of Zelda Wiki's articles would be effected. That's not really the point here, as that's an obvious change that would come about anyway if, say, we managed to gain 50 new excited editors who wanted to change things. That's not something that depends on a merge, but simply on editor enthusiasm. Also, just be clear, I didn't come here to discuss merits of our content which is open to all. I came here to discuss interpersonal things, because those are the things you can't change by hitting "Edit" whenever you want. Some things to consider when discussing a merger: Differences in policies; Bureaucrat/Mastermind situation; relationships with Zelda Fan community; etc. I'll continue to read this page and respond as necessary. ^_^ Also, I don't think you're mean at all: you're just demonstrating the same pride in your work I'd expect from someone from Zelda Wiki. Thank God most of them aren't here. =P --Xizor159 (talk) 19:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :::People here don't really want to merge. And would we be keeping our stats? B'crat/admin/rollback? Edit count? We wouldn't be treated the same, we'd be treated lesser than the ZW community. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 20:11, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Actually, the quality of good is only what we percieve it to be. ZP claims our articles are better, ZW claims the same, so really that arguement is somewhat moot. What is an issue is how differently ZWs and ZPs articles are, and it would mean a lotta work. Another factor is that there is a rivalry, albeit not as hostile as it once was, but the years of competion have created an atmosphere of competion and trying to break that in ZP users will be hard(there are several users on ZP who also downright dislike ZW). There is other lagistics as well such as: How will this effect ZW's server, what will happen to all the hard work ZP has put into the content, what will happen to users editcounts/contribs/edits/user pages/etc, how will ZW's users react, will this create a rivalry within ZW maybe even forcing a split? Now with all that, I'm really drawing a blank on how to do it properly. If anybody has any ideas, then I'll be willing to listen, but it has to be better than simply switching Wiki Farms and go to ShoutWiki. On a side note, the "One Wiki per Franchise" policy sounds like a really dumb policy. If a wiki is willing to help the Ninetendo Independant Wiki Alliance, why not let them, regardless if the membership of that Franchise is already taken(if they anwser turns out to be something illogical, then maybe it might be best to reconsider how a member is chosen).'-- C2' / 20:13, October 11, 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify on NIWA first: You can affiliate and all that jazz with them, that's not limited by franchise. The front page hub listing you as a FULL MEMBER would be limited. Obviously, things change, and NIWA is one of those things that has changed, and can change again. Nothing is impossible. On the subject of unfair and abusive treatment to imported members: It would simply not be tolerated. It's that simple, really. On the subject of hard work/importing: No, your edits would not be saved, I imagine. Most of the articles you would bring in are already in existence at Zelda Wiki, and thus would be better edited and revised as people see fit than completely stripped and rewritten with some cockeyed "compromise" wording. The Wiki would need to flow normally. Would you guys lose some things? Yes. Would you also gain some things? Yes. Would we lose and gain things? Yes. To put this metaphor simply: You can come to our house, you can live with us, you can bring all your toys and play with us, but it's our house. That's not to say that the House Rules aren't up for discussion at some point, but it's still our house. We aren't building a new one. --Xizor159 (talk) 20:17, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :So it's you're house. What we do has no effect? Why would we want to lose our edit counts when we've worked hard to get them. And you haven't answered, would we keep our status as b'crat/admin/rollback? --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 20:35, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::No, what you do and did has effects, it just isn't represented by an inconsequential number that in the end means nothing other than how many times you clicked "Save Page" here. I could have 100 edits on one page and do relatively little. It is a pretty frivolous thing that would be silly to allow to get in the way of a situation that could help us both. Obviously, you could include on your new User Pages what your OLD edit counts were? I'm not stating any final actions here. Just thoughts. But yes, it would be "our house" that we allow you you to also call "our house" with us. --Xizor159 (talk) 20:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :::Jazzi, please don't get hostile here. Perhaps I just read it wrong and you weren't meaning to be aggressive, but that's sort of how it seemed. Everything seems to be a possibility at this point. And as I am one who doesn't really like the idea of a move to begin with, I don't really have an opinion here. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:45, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sorry Joe. I guess I am starting to get slightly hostile. But, I'd just like to keep my edit count and stats. I worked hard to get where I am at this point. I had to pull a complete 180, heck, I might've made the world reverse it's spin. I'd just like to keep what I had and not start over. If we do move, I'd like to move to a place we can keep our stats and edit counts. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 20:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::I understand your love of your hard work. Whatever your ranks here (Admin to Admin, Rollback to Patroller) could be moved over. I'm not sure if there's a way to import users with edit counts to articles that really won't exist at ZW. That's all. I think that'd be something to work out if you guys wanted to merge. --Xizor159 (talk) 20:55, October 11, 2010 (UTC) I am not in favour of a merge between ZP and ZW. There would be a lot of work involved, both wikis think that they have better articles and policies, there would probably be a great deal of friction between members of the two sites, and we don't stand to gain much. -'Isdrak ' 22:22, October 11, 2010 (UTC) Like I said on Skype, I just don't see it happening at all. Apart from what's been said, it's a totally different atmosphere. Say what you will about conforming and whatnot, but in the end it quite simply would not be the same. It just feels wrong, you know what I'm saying? ...No? Well, whatever. We can debate the statistical likelihood of total opinion changes and the power of friendship or whatever, but that does not change the fact that, from where I'm standing, the chances of people agreeing to this is way too low to realistically consider. Possible, sure, but it's just not happening given any course of action that would in any way conform to what I know of anybody here. I don't mean to sound rude (even though I know this will come off that way anyway), but we went very back-and-forth on Skype in a pointless cycle of logical probability countered with abstract possibility, so that's really all I have to say on the manner, whether you respond or not (unless you bring up a good point not previously noted). I know the situation here at ZP better than you do, and what you say does not change the fact that this simply is not realistic. And well, like I said, I'm not really for the idea myself. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 22:24, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :"To be clear, even if a merge is not the ultimate result, there are other options to our relationship that don't have to involve bitter resentment." I said this from the outset, and it's still true. We are very willing to be friendly with you guys. --Xizor159 (talk) 22:55, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::You may be, but I doubt the other users will be. I mean, there are people here, that if we got some ZW members, would be quite hostile toward them. Now, there are users that try their best to be as friendly as possible to new users. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 23:07, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :::I guarantee that if you came to ZW right now and said, "Hey I'm from ZP, i'd love to help here too!" then everyone'd say "Great!" and let you be. So it's your guys' issue to work out, sounds like. =P My Skype name is xizor159, for anyone who wanted it, btw. --Xizor159 (talk) 23:22, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, mine is JazKaiz if you want to get a hold of me at 3:30 eastern time anytime this week if you want to continue this discussion. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 23:40, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Hey, tis Nate, another crat/rep from Zelda Wiki. I've sorted out a few things between our companies in the past so I figured I would speak up. For starters: Anything that involves moving off Wikia means losing your edit count. End of story. In fact, I'm not sure you guys are even aware, but none of you "own" this content. Say you wanted to have ZP leave Wikia (as is one of the proposed deals) - all of hhe present content stays here. WIKIA owns it. It can't come with. You wont be able to easily transfer it without a lot of copy pasting. Moving this wiki at all means you need to rebuild it all over again, and convince your userbase to come with. Now, this has successfully happened with other wiki's in the past that got completely fed up with Wikia and more specifically, Angela Beasely (may have spelled the name wrong). ::It wasn't easy for those wiki's to move, and if you do move, it wont be easy for you either. This is why talks of a merge even arise at all, because instead of starting from scratch, you get a base of content that you can start editing your work into. While it's true you have users that would completely destroy a ZW member if they came here and talked and edited a little (specifically if they said they liked ZW more), I would think that attitude and behavior (attacking another user) isn't tolerated at this wiki. It sure as hell is no longer tolerated at ZW. We have users who "hate" ZP, but if that hate turns into berrading and verbal attacks, said user is no longer welcome at Zelda Wiki.org. It's a code of ethics, and I would think all large, good quality, wiki's conform to the same sort of member expected standards. It's clear our staffs ended the fued a long time ago. ::As for things with NIWA - it's always evolving and policies can still change, but as I stated previously, if you leave Wikia it is, indeed, starting over. The biggest downfall of being part of wikia, outside of their own BS, is the fact that they OWN this place, you don't. It sucks. The community can have little say on what sort of layout you use (in terms of navigation), you can't change base policies that have to conform to wikia's standard, you don't control the advertising that the guests see (which is a majority of the viewers)... really you just have a major lack of control over anything, along with wikia making things all ugly for the main viewers. ::I wont go any further into why I dislike wikia - there is plenty of documentation for that on the net already. Just know that I am sure we can at least lend you guys a hand no matter why you choose to do if it does involve, in any sense of the word, leaving wikia.Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk) 00:42, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually Nathanial there is a point your wrong on. We can keep all of our articles and edit counts. How? Well with ShoutWiki you can e-mail them a link to your new Wiki and the old one, and also include a link to the database dump of a Wiki using Special:Statistics. So the option is there to keep all of our articles and hopefully our edit counts as well(which I'm 90% positive that ShoutWiki supports that feature). So that is why mergeing with ZW would have to somehow be a better option then copying the database of ZP and going to ShoutWiki. The one bennefit of having us merge with you is that, you will lose your biggest competitor, and the editors that come with will give you even more people who know how to edit and run a wiki. If we go to ShoutWiki you know we will only be taking one or two steps back, and we will lose a lotta trafic, but we will have all of our articles and be rid of Wikia. Wikia will keep all of our content and the URL, but who's to say we can't have a copy of years of work?'-- C2' / 01:08, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well then good luck doing that. I, and Zelda Wiki, hope it works out for you. Our offer of friendship still stands. =] --Xizor159 (talk) 01:16, October 12, 2010 (UTC) (Ninjas Into the Forum) Haha! Never thought you'd see from me again, did you?! Anywhoo, Xizor, thanks for edit conflicting with me :P . Nathanial, thanks for offering help, it means a lot to (at very least,) me. CC, you make a good point, and I would want to know: Would Wikia let us still run under the Zeldapedia monkier? And also, most of you know that I am pro-unification of both ZP and ZW, but there's been too much bad blood to make it work easily. I still think that the idea needs some serious consideration. It would be a struggle, and I'd be willing to help out wherever needed. Mr kmil 01:24, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :Things would not be terribly hard if everybody could just let go of the past and say, "Let's make it work." It's a lot easier than it sounds, even. We can make it work at Zelda Wiki. You have to let us. It's that simple, really. --Xizor159 (talk) 01:47, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::For me it isn't an issue of bad blood but fundamental deference between the two wikis. Articles are formated entirely different. To be honest one of the key reasons why I started editing here verses ZW was because I preferred the article style here better (I was actually going to join ZW before I stumbled upon ZP). The problem with merging with ZW would not being able to decide on an article style and formatting rules that everybody agrees with. That is the one huge issue to overcome a possible merger. I for one would hate to change the article style to match ZW and I'm sure there are users on ZW who would hate our style here. --Birdman5589 (talk) 01:58, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Xizor, not to be rude but please drop the issue. We will discuss it amongst ourselves. Thank you. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 02:00, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::"Not to be rude" doesn't make what you say after that phrase automatically not rude. I responded to something someone said, as I said I would be doing here. I'll continue to respond to things as I feel is necessary. --Xizor159 (talk) 02:12, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::This discussion is over. It's time for you and your croonies editors to leave. We'll discuss it on our own. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 02:19, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Also to add on, any discussion of a merger does have a direct effect on us, and how we move forward, and if we need to reopen any of our current policies for discussion and the like. When discussion of a merger with another site is underway, even if it's the slightest possibility, you can't simply "ignore" the other party. It's a big decision. We also have a new layout in the works too, and I am sure some of our formatting is going to change along with the layout as it stands. I'm not trying to start anything, but whats the harm in the present discussion? We're just going over some scenarios. This has a potential direct affect on us, and really, we're not some big evil business as those here may think. If you choose to leave wikia, even without a merger, we are will to extend a hand in offering to help - be it in finding a new host, being supported by NIWA, etc. We can also help provide/find reliable and efficient hosting should you want to be independent, which is also a requirement for NIWA (not part of a big network like shout wiki, etc). Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk) 02:21, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::: Honestly, I have to agree with Nathaniel on this point. It's not like we can have a discussion amongst ourselves and force that decision on the other party. I doubt we will actually merge with ZW, seeing how unpopular the idea is (I am personally neutral/skeptical), but still...it's only fair that ZW has at least a say in what would happen should we decide to merge. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:38, October 12, 2010 (UTC) I've noticed some of you guys talking about losing your edits in a move. In all actuality, it's not impossible to regain your edits. I know how to manipulate a database to restore your edit count. It's just a simple code. However, I can't help you if you move to someplace where you lack FTP access to your database. If you decide to move to your own independent wiki or you decide to merge with Zelda Wiki, come pester me and I'll write it up for you. Anyway...ta-ta! --Justin 02:30, October 12, 2010 (UTC) - ::::If you prefer, consider this the "fan site" community trying to extend you a hand. Presently, almost every fan site out there, sites that are as popular if not more popular than either of the two wikis, fully support ZW. Xizor and I, however, also represent two prominent fan sites, and we're looking to extend a hand to you regardless. We're not just some ZW lackies, we actually are pretty well in touch with the mood and ideals instilled in the overarching fan community, comprised, from our little mastermind collaboration, of over 70,000 daily unique viewers.Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk) 02:33, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::There is not reason to tell them to shut up, we will decide if we want to merge at all on our own, but it might be worth-while to at least have an understanding of what the other side thinks of it, because it does involve a pretty big change for their site. On as side note, we would have a lot of our content already over there, so even doing a database transfer wouldn't be nessisary. And if what Justin said is true we could get our edits back at ZW.'-- C2' / 02:42, October 12, 2010 (UTC)